Sage Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching according to the people he was amongst.+

Sage Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching according to the people he was amongst. He never told them to give up their particular religion or beliefs or metaphysics completely; he only told them to give up the worst features of abuse. At the same time, he showed just one step forward toward the truth.

Sage Sankara says in Brahma Sutras: that Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in Manduka upanishad he denies it.

Sage Gaudapada says: - the merciful Veda teaches karma and Upasana to people of lower and middling intellect, while jnana is taught to those of higher intellect.

Sage Sankara says in Brahma Sutras: that Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in Mandukya he denies it.

Brahma Sutras, i.e. "Vedanta Sutras" by Badarayana, is intended for those of middling intellects, not for those who have the best brains: it is a semi-theological, semi-philosophical work; it starts with the assumption that Brahman exists.

The doctrine of causality taught in the Brahma Sutra is not the same as our highest Advaitic non-causality. It is only the beginning towards that; it says that you do not find in the effect what is not already present in the cause.

The Sutra-Bhashya of Sankara principally deals with the principle of superimposition, yet the pundits have not grasped its higher semantic value.

Brahma Sutras begin with the dogma of Brahman but who has seen Brahman? It is a mere empty word like 'x'. Hence it is called a book of religion, not philosophy. It is for beginners who have not yet unfolded discrimination, who believe in creation (i.e., causality), and who have to be raised as Anandagiri, the commentator himself writes.

The opening sentence is "All this is Brahman.” But nobody knows or has seen Brahman. If we say "All this is wood" and show a piece of wood, the words are understandable. Suppose you have never seen wood. Then what is the use of such a sentence? It becomes meaningless when the object indicated is seen by none. Hence, the Brahma Sutra opening is equivalent to "All this is X". Both have no meaning so long as they are not understood if we take them as the data to start from. It is for this reason that I say the book is intended for theological minds because it begins with dogma, although its reasoning is close. For it starts with something imagined.

The Brahma Sutras together with Sage Sankara's commentary thereon do not contain higher Vedanta. They are intended for duffers.

Sankara's commentary on Brahma Sutras is not on a philosophical basis, but on a religio-mystic one, with the appeal to Vedas as the final authority. In Brahma Sutra, Sage Sankara takes the position that there is another entity outside us, i.e., the wall really exists separately from the mind. This was because Sage Sankara explains in Manduka Upanishad that those who study the Sutras are religious minds and intellectual children, hence his popular viewpoint to assist them. These people are afraid to go deeper because it means being heroic enough to refuse to accept Sruti and God's authority, in case they mean punishment by God. But we say: Keep the scriptures for children but throw them on the fire for wise seekers.:~Santthosh Kumaar